The recent announcement by the Chamber of Mines of Namibia that the mining sector sustained more than 166,000 jobs in 2025 is undoubtedly encouraging news. At a time when unemployment remains one of Namibia’s most pressing socio-economic challenges, any evidence of job creation deserves recognition. The continued advancement of uranium, gold, copper and critical mineral projects further suggests that the sector remains an important pillar of economic activity and national development.
However, the announcement should also prompt a broader and more fundamental discussion: whose responsibility is it to create jobs in Namibia?
This question lies at the heart of many policy debates, particularly in countries with persistently high unemployment rates. In Namibia, where unemployment has remained stubbornly high despite decades of political stability and economic growth, the issue has become increasingly urgent.
Many citizens instinctively look to government as the primary source of employment. This expectation is understandable. Government is visible, influential and often the largest single employer in many developing countries. When jobs are scarce, calls for expanded public-sector hiring become louder.
Yet there are important economic realities that cannot be ignored.
Historically, governments are not designed to be the primary engines of job creation. Their central functions are to provide public goods, maintain law and order, build infrastructure, establish regulatory certainty and create conditions in which economic activity can flourish. Sustainable employment is generally generated by productive enterprises operating within a healthy economic ecosystem.
When governments become the dominant employers in an economy, several risks emerge.
First, public-sector employment becomes financially difficult to sustain. Government salaries are funded by taxpayers and economic output generated elsewhere in the economy. If the productive private sector does not grow sufficiently, the tax base becomes inadequate to support an expanding bureaucracy.
Second, excessive dependence on government employment can weaken entrepreneurship and innovation. Citizens increasingly look to the state for opportunities rather than seeking to create opportunities themselves. Economic dynamism declines.
Third, the country may gradually drift toward what some economists describe as a “nanny state” model, where the state assumes responsibilities that would ordinarily be performed by private enterprises, markets and civil society institutions.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. Several countries have experienced the consequences of oversized public sectors. In some instances, governments became the employer of last resort, only to discover that rising wage bills consumed resources that could otherwise have been invested in infrastructure, education or productive economic development.
Namibia must avoid this trap.
The role of government should not be to employ everyone. Rather, its responsibility is to create an environment where businesses can grow, invest and hire.
This includes maintaining policy certainty, reducing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles, ensuring reliable infrastructure, strengthening education systems and fostering investor confidence.
The examples of countries such as Singapore, Ireland and Botswana are instructive. While their circumstances differ significantly from Namibia’s, their success was built not on massive government employment programmes but on creating environments that attracted investment and encouraged private-sector expansion.
However, recognising the importance of private-sector job creation does not end the discussion.
The Chamber of Mines’ employment figures raise another important question: what kind of jobs are being created?
The quantity of jobs matters, but so does their quality.
A country may report impressive employment numbers while simultaneously experiencing widespread underemployment, skills mismatches and low-income work. This reality is increasingly evident in many developing economies.
In Namibia, one frequently encounters university graduates who remain unemployed despite possessing formal qualifications. Others find themselves working in positions that neither utilise their skills nor provide pathways for professional advancement.
This phenomenon highlights a growing disconnect between educational outputs and labour market requirements.
Mining jobs, for example, span a wide spectrum. They include highly specialised engineers, geologists, data analysts and environmental scientists. At the same time, they include contractors, support staff, security personnel and temporary workers.
All these positions contribute to employment figures, but they do not necessarily address the aspirations of graduates seeking professional careers.
This is not a criticism of the mining sector. Rather, it underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of employment statistics.
Policy-makers should move beyond simply counting jobs and begin assessing their quality, sustainability and contribution to long-term economic mobility.
Furthermore, Namibia must confront the reality that the future of employment may look very different from the past.
Automation, artificial intelligence and technological advancement are transforming labour markets worldwide. The jobs of tomorrow will increasingly require technical competence, adaptability and specialised knowledge.
Consequently, job creation strategies cannot focus exclusively on traditional sectors.
Mining will remain important, but Namibia must simultaneously cultivate industries such as renewable energy, logistics, technology services, advanced agriculture, manufacturing and entrepreneurship-driven small businesses.
As an entrepreneur, I have come to appreciate that every successful business, regardless of its size, contributes to national development. Small and medium enterprises often create jobs incrementally, one employee at a time, but collectively they form the backbone of thriving economies.
Unfortunately, many Namibian entrepreneurs continue to face significant barriers, including limited access to finance, regulatory complexity, market concentration and infrastructure challenges.
Addressing these constraints may ultimately generate more sustainable employment than expanding government payrolls.
The debate about job creation should therefore not be framed as a choice between government and the private sector. Both have essential but distinct roles.
Government must provide the foundation. The private sector must build upon it.
Government creates the conditions for growth; businesses create productive employment. Educational institutions develop human capital; industries absorb and utilise those skills. Together, these actors form an interconnected ecosystem.
The Chamber of Mines’ announcement offers a welcome reminder that economic activity can generate substantial employment opportunities. Yet it should also encourage deeper reflection about the nature of those jobs, the sustainability of employment creation and the broader structure of Namibia’s economy.
Ultimately, Namibia’s long-term prosperity will not be measured by the size of its public service but by the strength, diversity and competitiveness of its private sector. The goal should not be a nation where government employs everyone. The goal should be a nation where opportunity is so abundant that government does not need to.
That is the distinction between managing unemployment and building prosperity.
